Political Affiliation of Adult Mass Murderers in United States

Abner, please read heirophant's commentary (above) because it is logical and accurate.

 

Abner, there is an old military saying: "Lead, follow or get out of the way." There is a place for everyone in that saying.

 

Sanantone, for those who study mass shooting issues, all of the thesēs that you just suggested are already being discussed. Thank you for bringing those thesēs to the table here. They should be examined and explored, both quantitatively (empirically) as well as qualitatively, in a large-scale national study.

Sanantone, the political affiliation of adult mass shooters has not been previously discussed. It should be examined, explored and discussed in a large-scale national study.

The political affiliation of convicted felons has already been discussed and it is common knowledge that most felons are Democrats. It is what it is.

 

Sanantone, is the Constitution a "living document" that is meant to change (via modern re-interpretations) or should it's original Constitutional intent apply to the 21st Century? Therein lies the difference of opinion.

 

Or, to put it another (you know, more accurate) way, it is a tired fringe right-wing conspiracy theory and a baseless slur that you decided to spread on this forum. Pretty much a full time job for Trump apologist (interestingly, Putin apologists, paid and volunteer, have essentially the same job. Even some of the specific fake news are the same). The fact you keep doing it interests me more than the Second Amendment debate. What happens to a democracy when one side abandons attempts to debate in good faith?

 

I do. On balance, the best country in the world.

 

I'm far from being alone - last month's Hillary event in Toronto was sold out before I could get a ticket.

But I understand me again's need to bring it up. He's relatively knew at this, and pointing out his serial lying must make him uncomfortable. Poor thing.

 

More interesting would be to not limit the scope of the research to the USA. We are a young country still trying to find its identity. If you want to see people firmly committed to their government, a better sample would be those with more of a history.

EDIT to add: mental health "issues" is not a diagnosis. I think they should be left in the sample.

 

Felons usually can't vote and usually weren't very involved in the political process before being convicted anyway. Felons also tend to be more socially conservative, especially when it comes to religion, abortion, and gay rights issues.

Well, the NRA sees it as something that should be reinterpreted. They have gone against much older court interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. They completely ignore the whole "well-regulated militia." I don't see how anyone who is fluent in English could interpret "well-regulated militia" as the government has no right to regulate the purchase of automatic weapons. Most gun owners in the U.S. are not in a well-regulated militia. Because of this, any uprising against the federal government would be quickly squashed by the well-trained military. State defense forces are somewhat of a manifestation of well-regulated militias, but less than two dozen states have them, and none of them are trained for combat. Sweden's compulsory military service is more in line with what it means to have a widespread, well-regulated militia. If Americans think they're prepared to fight the U.S. military just by owning guns and having no combat training or proper weaponry, then good luck.

By the way, you might want to look at more neutral sources in addition to the right wing websites you read. Most felons are not registered Democrats because most felons don't even register to vote. Plus, the studies are only based on a few states. You also have to take into account that black people are incarcerated at disproportionate numbers, and most black people are Democrats regardless of criminal record. Correlation does not equal causation. This bad interpretation of studies is what happens when you don't take a good research methods and statistics course.


Are the 'overwhelming majority of violent criminals' Democrats? Ted Cruz said so | PolitiFact

 

Good point. National Guard could be considered a militia, I guess. Also, the Swiss army, and semi-volunteer units like Polish Territorial Defence, whatever the equivalent is called in Estonia, etc. Ukraine seems to be in the process of setting up the Territorial Defense Forces along the lines of Poland (actually, Poland copied the half-baked idea from Ukraine, which now uses Poland's experience in reorganizing the service). At the beginning of Russia evasion, volunteer battalions arose as a true militia, but almost all are absorbed to either the Army or the National Guard (militarized units under Ministry of Internal Affairs, so quasi-police). A couple independent units remain, the most visible is ultra-right Right Sector's Volunteer Ukrainian Corps. I salute their heroism but can't help but wonder what their deal is. In any case: THESE are "well-regulated militia".

 

Stanislav, the word for today is unhinged.

 

When the US Constitution was written, the question whether the United States should even have a standing army was hugely controversial.

Some argued that the US needed a trained and professional military force. Others argued that a professional military force might turn against the people and become an engine for tyranny. People still remembered the Revolutionary War and how the American forces had been a popular uprising of an armed citizenry against professional British forces (in some cases Hessians). So many people looked to the idea of a popular militia called up from the armed citizenry as the ultimate bottom-line guarantor of their own liberty.

As in so many things, the Constitution was a compromise. It provided for a (small) standing military and it also provided for an armed citizenry with the means to defend themselves if need be. Language about "well regulated" was inserted to head off any idea that the Constitution was protecting the rights of armed mobs.

Certainly in those days, owning a firearm was entirely uncontroversial. Hunting was common and routine. Owning a firearm was almost universal, especially in more remote frontier areas (in those days the Appalachians and out in the Midwest and in places like Kentucky and Tennessee).

 

https://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-sandy-hook

 

Eloquent, and not at all passive aggressive. Spoken as a true Theology scholar.

 

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Sanantone, you are conversely ignoring: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sanantone, most (not all) able-bodied freemen were subject to conscription, thus making them militiamen. Training, preparing and regulating militiamen does not bar "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [because it] shall not be infringed." Also, as a recap, please read Heirophan's outstanding historical summary about guns by clicking here.

 

Abner & Stanislav have imported theology into this topic

1. Abner, you are the first person in this entire thread to mention religion (as a defensive crux).

2. Stanislav is the second person to mention religion in this thread.

3. Subsequently, based on Abner's and Stanislav's persistent interest in religion, this writer will be the third person to mention it. Just for fun, here is a theology sampler. In this exercise, students were not allowed to write in excess of two pages because the professor would not read anything in excess of that. The goal was reportedly to get students to be concise with complex topics that require large amounts of technical reading:

http://docdro.id/rAoS7fM

 

The United States Supreme Court said exactly that in District of Columbia vs Heller in 2008. DC tried to argue that the 2'd Amendment only applies to individuals in active service in an organized militia such as the National Guard. The Supreme Court disagreed and held "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home." The decision explains the majority's reasoning at great length here (the "liberal" justices' dissent follows):

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

 

Having said that, this Las Vegas shooter seems to have been firing fully automatic, machine-gun style. (The videos confirm that.) He apparently accomplished that little wonder legally, without altering the mechanism of his firearms, by using a bumper stock. (I'd heard of these, but never knew they worked that well in converting a semi-auto to full auto.)

Given that fully automatic weapons are already illegal, I don't really have any big objection to outlawing bumper stocks that have that same effect. (A quick websearch shows lots of them for sale.)

What Is a Bump Stock - How Slide Fire Works - Bump Fire Legal

 

Newt Gingrich said the same thing last night.

Newt Gingrich: Semi-Automatic Gun Modifications Should Be Banned Under the Federal Firearms Act - Breitbart

 

I read Heirophant's post on armed mobs. The current interpretation allows for armed, unregulated militias.

Additionally, when you get into the "infringed" part, does it mean that you can't infringe upon a person's right to bear arms or to bear any arms? If you look above, Heirophant believes that bumper stocks should be made illegal. According to your interpretation, that would be infringement.